Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dulal Hossain vs West Bengal State Electricity ... on 25 August, 2011
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
W.P. No.13651 (W) of 2011
Dulal Hossain
-vs-
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors.
Mr. Shantipada Pahari
Mr. Subrata Mukherjee
Ms. Tania Sen Majumder .........for the petitioner.
Mr. Rammohan Chattapadhyay .............for WBSEDCL.
Mr. Arun Kumar Maity ........for the fifth respondent.
Heard on : August 25, 2011 Judgment on : August 25, 2011 The Court : The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated August 17, 2011 is questioning a notice of West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. dated August 10, 2011 (at p.30) that his failure to produce certificate of registration authorising him to operate a pump, within the time mentioned in the notice, would compel the Company to disconnect supply of electricity to him.
Mr Pahari appearing for the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner applied to the District Level Authority concerned for registration of his existing well on December 28, 2010. Supply was given in compliance with a previous order of this Court. Hence the 2 Company ought not to have issued the notice threatening disconnection. The Authority should be directed to decide the petitioner's application for certificate of registration immediately.
In view of the provisions of the West Bengal Ground Water Resources (Management Control and Regulation) Act, 2005, after February 2007 the petitioner could not operate the pump without obtaining a certificate of registration under the Act authorising him to extract and use groundwater.
In contravention of the provisions of the Act and thus committing offence under s.16 thereof the petitioner continued to extract and use groundwater by operating the pump. The Company continued to supply him electricity for the purpose and thus encouraged him to commit the offence. Only on December 28, 2010 the petitioner applied to the Authority under the Act for registration of his existing well.
On these facts, I do not find any reason to say that the Company, belatedly taking the corrective measures, committed any wrong by issuing the notice of disconnection. Supply for operating the illegal pump ought to have been disconnected immediately after February 2007.
As to the question of grant of certificate of registration by the Authority under the Act on the basis of the petitioner's application dated December 28, 2010, suffice it to say that the petitioner has to wait for his turn.
It is not the case that his application is the only application pending before the Authority, or that any application filed by anyone after him has been taken up for consideration by the Authority. Under the circumstances, an order cannot be made mechanically directing the Authority to decide his application within the time fixed by the Court. Such an order will cause grave injustice to the other applicants who are awaiting their turns.
3For these reasons, the petition is dismissed making it clear that nothing herein shall be interpreted by the Authority to say that it is not required to decide the petitioner's application for certificate of registration according to law. No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.) Sr(c); ab(f)